Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 321–334

Chapter 17
And then you are left holding the baby!

Strategic manoeuvring with the argumentum ad consequentiam

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two disguised manifestations of the argumentum ad consequentiam
  • 3.The experiment
    • 3.1Material
    • 3.2Respondents
    • 3.3Results
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.17van
References (12)
References
Beevor, A. (2012). The second world war. New York: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psycholinguistics. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Argumentation in Context 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (Argumentation in Context 11, pp. 7–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Argumentation Library 16). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The disguised ‘abusive ad hominem’ empirically investigated. Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
 (2015). De vermomde ad baculum drogreden empirisch onderzocht [The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(1), 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2015). Argumentatie. Inleiding in het analyseren en beoordelen van betogen [Argumentation. Introduction into the analysis and evaluation of argumentative texts]. 5th revised ed. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. J. (2006). Beweringen met nare consequenties. Twee varianten van het argumentum ad consequentiam [Assertions with nasty consequences. Two variants of the argumentum ad consequentiam]. In B. J. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren [Reasonableness in person. Ten pragma-dialectical essays in honour of Frans van Eemeren] (pp. 107–115). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.Google Scholar
(2016). Face the consequences! Strategic maneuvering with the argumentum ad consequentiam. In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The psychology of argument. Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (Studies in logic: Mathematical logic and foundations 59, pp. 245–253). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2023. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited. Argumentation 37:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.